Diamond Aircraft has announced that its single-engine, retractable-gear DA50 RG has received its European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification. The model, which flew for the first time in October 2019, was announced at Aero Friedrichshafen 2019. The company plans to begin deliveries in the first quarter of 2021 and is aiming for FAA certification by the end of 2021.
“With the DA50 RG we are introducing an innovative 21st-century retract single that we are convinced the market is missing,” said Diamond Aircraft Austria CEO Liqun Zhang. “Bringing the aircraft to the market is a great accomplishment that we are very pleased to celebrate with our Diamond Aircraft Family and the aviation community all over the world.”
The five-seat DA50 RG has a top speed of 181 knots, 750 NM range and 1,232-pound useful load. The carbon composite aircraft is powered by the turbocharged Continental CD-300 engine and equipped with the Garmin G1000 NXi. Optional features include a removable right-hand control stick, oxygen system, electric air conditioning, TKS de-icing system and Garmin GCU 476 keypad.
I’m a huge Diamond fan, and if I could afford one of these, I’d get one. However, what does Zhang think the market is missing? Hopefully it’s not a modern retract. Retractable gear has become a non issue IMO. An aircraft has performance characteristics, and that’s that isn’t it? If it does it by hiding the wheels in flight do I still care? Are the gear on Mooney’s and Bo’s more trouble than I think they are?
Perhaps it’s the engine? That is the real difference here. They made a plane that can use that heavy engine without it making the plane undesirable. Not sure what that gets us. That engine just doesn’t make it as a choice for the rest of the fleet so unless they can start selling these for half price, nothing will really matter.
I find the great accomplishment to be getting a plane through the hurdles of finance and regulation. If you handed the major components to a 1940’s engineer he’d make you an aluminum version and be producing 50 a month in less months than this project took years.
Speaking of that period. This thing has a bit of a P40 look to it. Is it just me? Should they make a flying tiger version?
Not just you. I thought the same thing.
AvWeb recently published an article that might have some answers https://www.avweb.com/insider/resurgence-of-the-rg/?MailingID=%CAMPAIGNID%. I read this as trying to achieve the “180kt” benchmark with as little fuel burn as necessary.
I have a BO and I do not find the landing gear to be an issue. I will tell you being able to throw out the gear in turbulence IS a great reason to have them. I have no idea how other planes handle this – slowing down and staying slowed down is priceless in a small GA airplane imho.
That’s what speed brakes are for.
Congrats to Diamond for their certification efforts thus far. Like Epic, along haul, and certainly not over yet.
I find it interesting on the final certified product vs initial design and performance expectations. Initial top/max cruise speed over 200kts, empty weight 2200lbs, and max range of 1500nm.
EASA certified version top/max cruise speed 181kts ( without TKS and AC), empty weight 3175lbs, gross weight 4407, max useful load ( without TKS and AC) 1232lbs, max range 750nm. Also, the max range is not at 2300rpm as max/max cruise speed but at a yet to be published lower power setting.
For the 750nm range with 30 minute reserve, mostly likely a power setting closer to 2100 rpm and at what loss of speed? Most likely, the DA-50 will cruise at 9.2gph at closer to 160-165kts..which is still respectable for a an average flying weight of 4000+lbs. Right now, the engine has a 1200hr TBO with a hopeful future TBO of 2000 hours.
The DA-50 is no short field performer. Being twin turbo will help some for high density altitude engine performance but 2-2500 ft average T/O distances at sea level does make me wonder what performance charts will look like at 3-5-8-10K density altitudes. Max range is accomplished at 16,000ft, where oxygen is needed further eroding useful load.
While typical in its general composite silhouette shape, looking at all the protuberances, cooling ducts, twin steps, flap linkage fairings, antennas, extra fins, etc, this airplane looks far from clean. Gull wing type doors have a cool factor but requires everyone to board via a climb on the wing.
I guess I am wondering how well an average performing airplane, somewhat challenging to climb into and load, with a wingspan that does not fit into the average 40ft-42 ft hangar door, weighing a 1.5+ tons empty, and a useful load of around 1000lbs when equipped with TKS and AC, will sell against the current competition. Nice to have a wide cabin. But there is no free lunch in aerodynamics. If I were Textron Beechcraft, I would not stop producing G36’s just yet.
But hat’s off to their tenacity to bring their airplane into the current aviation market-place.
Empty weight of 3175 lbs seems very high for a composite 5 seater. A cirrus is 2200 lbs, a 50 year old 7-seat piper lance is about 2200 lbs as well. Where is the extra weight going?